This was a terrorist attack due to:
He deliberatly ran into the back of protestors and innocent bystanders alike with high speed.
After his initial crash leaving many wounded on the streets and "innocent passengers" of 2 cars in uncertain state he showed no remorse and violently backed up with speed, trampling over casualties from round one.
A car is the same league as rifles/guns when it comes to "weaponising". A car doesn't scare, hurt, injure or maim.... A car kills!
Innocent bystanders
All in all: Reckless, unremorsefull and with intention to deliberatly cause harm to a group (not individuals) he disagreed with (hates).
So it's all fine as long as it is baseball bats, bike locks, knives, maces, and rifles. But if a car is used, it changes from 'protestors meeting' to 'terrorist'?
First of all i make a distinction of 3 groups of weapons:
A. handweapons and eventual weapons (signs, tikitorches, stones, bats, mace etc).
B. Knives and edged weapons.
C. Firearms and cars.
When confronted as a protestor during rowdy confrontations by category: A. you where most likely in the vanguard/"thick of it", provocating yourself and deliberatly putting yourself at risk. You could've walked away any moment and most likely a lot of provocation between "hotheads" goes on before they "go for it".
Use by category A. can also been seen as "defensive" in most cases, is limited in damage and causes injuries with only incidental deaths. It's also up close so "stop attacking" by "seeing what you did"/injuries or being stopped by fellow protestors is a thing. I see this as rowdy riots, "teaching them a lesson", basically European football hooliganism.
I'm not surprised those weapons are used in these kind of incidents.
However: If you bring Category B. or firearms from category C. to these protests: You come with the intent to harm maybe kill. (lets leave the gunlaw discussion out of this)
Using category B or C violently during these events, is attempted murder without a doubt.
That's what you and I remember them for, but that is not universal. My understanding is that some/many in the southern US tend to focus on other aspects of them.
They are depicted in full confederate general's uniforms on top of battle horses. It's pretty hard to see anything else but "the gloryfication of the confederacy"
Let's say Robert E. Lee was loved for his "community sense, regional vision and cooperation" (just making it up) he should have been depicted in a normal suit, a friendly gesture, feeding a horse or whatever. (I would be against removing that) It's not like your Canadian statues are depicting the men holding decapitated indian heads.
I get it though "where to draw the line", it's even trickier cause it's in the USA. Mine is after the confederate uniformed gentlemen are taken down. They lost their war and their cause, hence the right to be gloryfied.
Like i said if you where an explorer and had slaves you have to be able to put that into perspective. Slaves where custom in those days and you can't look at it with your 21st century goggles on. I mean the Roman's had all kinds of slaves, and we shouldnt tear that shit down.
We have the same brewing somewhere in the distance in NL with streetnames of our hero admirals and captains (condoning and glorifying slavery and imperialism) but I doubt it will take hold in mainstream as the Dutch tend to be allergic to bullshit.
Anything remotely connected with Nazis is taboo, so that's a bit of an exception. But there are many monuments to 'the enemy' all over the world. Here's one. I can provide many more examples, but I assume you get my point.
Mostly those are anonymous depictions of the enemy. Sort of mystical interpretation of old forgotten foes. Glorifying the confederacy is highly political though.
I didn't see anyone defend it, or try to justify it.
Voat had some posts that actually did.
This was a terrorist attack due to: ...
I do not agree. I see how you can make the argument. It does meet the most basic definition.
But it is a stretch at best. It was targeted, and a part of larger events.
Most importantly, by framing it that way the preventable causes go ignored. But hey, it furthers a political agenda, so there is that.
..deliberatly cause harm to a group (not individuals) he disagreed with (hates).
That's right. Targeted, not an attack on the public.
First of all i make a distinction of 3 groups of weapons:
I have a much simpler take on that. Two groups, those who use potentially lethal force, and those that don't.
If someone tried to run me over with a car, and I was able to kill them in defense instead. I would.
If someone tried to cave my scull in with a baseball bat, I would do the same.
There is no difference except in magnitude.
If a 'protester' brings potentially lethal force to a rally, they are just as bad. Just less ambitious.
It's pretty hard to see anything else but "the gloryfication of the confederacy"
I think that's where we're viewing it differently. To us the confederacy was a bunch of slave-owners fighting to own slaves. That is not what it means to many Americans. They don't see glory to the confederacy as being glory to slavery, or even racism. The south was not exterminated after the war. The confederate culture survived, but adapted. Now they are supposed to be ashamed of it all and burn everything?
Are we going to expect muslims to tear down mecca because Mohamed loved slavery too?
We all descended from assholes. Every single person. Every single culture.
So we should all get the same treatment. If the south is expected to scrub themselves from history because they were slow to get on board with human rights, then we will need to scrub my history next. And at some point we will work our way down to yours.
Robert E. Lee .. he should have been depicted in a normal suit, a friendly gesture ..
He was a brilliant general that was respected by his Union counterparts. Of course they put a sword in his hand. He was an impressive and influential figure in history.
you have to be able to put that into perspective. Slaves where custom in those days and you can't look at it with your 21st century goggles on
Yet, you seem to be wearing those glasses when you look at the Confederacy.
Voat had some posts that actually did.
Maybe, but no real people did.
I do not agree. I see how you can make the argument. It does meet the most basic definition. But it is a stretch at best. It was targeted, and a part of larger events. Most importantly, by framing it that way the preventable causes go ignored. But hey, it furthers a political agenda, so there is that.
That's right. Targeted, not an attack on the public.
Yet he also injured members of "the public" (car passengers) and jeopardized anyone walking in that street.
The protestors in question where also part of "the public" and walking on a public street. We dont even know how "die hard" or provocative this group of protesters at that street where.
Within your current used definition an attack on a church, mosque, military base etc etc. cannot be a "terrorist attack" as it is not "against the public".
I see both as seperate incidents, with connections, but the car incident is a hate crime at the very least and in my eyes it fits the definition of terror attack very comfortably.
Yet, you seem to be wearing those glasses when you look at the Confederacy.
I get southern pride to some extent (these days it's getting harder and harder to completely understand rednecks as an outsider) and i dont want to "erase" history by all means. I'm mainly saying in this case it is completely misplaced. My arguments against these "monuments" are:
The monuments where erected 50-60 years after the war took place, not during the era that events took place and these men and their values lived. Hence complete lack of historical sentiment or context.
The monuments as they are; glorify men that fought in a rebellion against the USA and it's principles, for the only reason that they actually fought in a rebellion against the USA and it's principles (confederate uniforms) and LOST. They didn't accomplish anything relevant, all their efforts where in vain, the men and "their cause" plainly lost. Hence the the statues should never be erected anyway.
The uniform glorifies and stands for "the cause" and it is one of the main reasons of this war. You cannot seperate this when viewing objectively. Even historically seen "the cause" was considered bad at the time. UK and France denounced it with vigour and campaigned to ban it globally. UK especially hated slavery and actively hounded the practise. "The north" was immensely more popular under common people in western Europe during the war. One of the reasons France and UK never could interveine even if the confederacy would have been a better option. (in many ways it was) I mean even Even the Dutch abolished slavery in our most dubious colony of Indonesia in 1863. Within context slavery was already seen as bad.
To look at the statues in proper context we need to put on our 1910-1930 goggles though (when the statues where erected) it doesn't change that much with current day views on slavery, i'm affraid.
If anything the monuments themselves are "fake history"
Like i said Rommel (not a nazi) never got a statue either and i think that is good. I compare this to removal of statues of Lenin, Saddam Hussain, Stalin, Franco etc etc. If they start removing Jefferson and Washington poke me and i'll denounce that.
The Confederate States of America only lasted for 4 years. Let's be honest, it wasn't that great. The men didn't do such "great things" and didn't accomplish "historical landmarks". They rebelled and then lost a short war without chance. I get that this gets inflated by US media/entertainment/nostalgia due to the lack of other "big events" in U.S. history, but when looking at it trough global history it was nothing but a small fizzle of failure.
The fact that these statues where standing on grounds belonging to the United states of America (241 years and counting) and being maintained by taxdollars is the world upside down anyway.
I'm a stubborn European and I studied history so I'm not easily impressed. If we would erect statues for every failed rebellion, revolutions, cause, last stand, losing war etc etc in Europe we wouldn't have the space to put anything else down.
I found this a fitting article: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450470/charlottesville-virignia-robert-e-lee-statue-remove-right-decision-confederate-monuments-museums
Are we going to expect muslims to tear down mecca because Mohamed loved slavery too?
I actually use this argument and the argument that Mohammed "would be a pedofile" against Dutch Muslims making arguments against Dutch monuments and street names. It is very effective.
Context:
There is a Muslim populist party, Denk , that got elected for the first time with 3 seats (out of 150) in NL. They are generally seen as "the long arm of Erdogan" for their Turkish affiliation. It's the only Dutch political party not denouncing Erdogan's "the dutch are nazi remnants" remark for example. One of the guys is making remarks about "dutch heroes" Admirals, captains etc and removing their names. This is not going down well with national popularity. They are copying a lot from SJW's and BLM tactics and playing some of their cards.
Luckily "being Dutch" also means being very level headed/sober, being very very direct and we cut trough bullshit rather quickly, so i doubt they will gain more traction and will fall down to 1 seat next election.
Agreed.
That's what you and I remember them for, but that is not universal. My understanding is that some/many in the southern US tend to focus on other aspects of them.
We all have historical figures that are celebrated for the good things they did, while their bad deeds are ignored. Almost all historical figures did some fucked up shit, or had unacceptable ideas, if you judge them by todays standards.
We have many statues here in Canada that are of explorers and settlers of the country. Those people did some great things. But ask the natives if they had a bad side.
They did, but we're not going to deny it, and I hope we don't start pulling our monuments.
Once you start pulling down monuments because the figure is politically incorrect, then all monuments are now at risk. Because none that are old, are correct today.
Anything remotely connected with Nazis is taboo, so that's a bit of an exception. But there are many monuments to 'the enemy' all over the world. Here's one. I can provide many more examples, but I assume you get my point.
I agree that it was the wrong time for the comment. When the car-murder happened he should have condemned it, and left it at that. But I think his point is a valid one. It was just expressed in the wrong way, at the wrong time.
I didn't see anyone defend it, or try to justify it.
So it's all fine as long as it is baseball bats, bike locks, knives, maces, and rifles. But if a car is used, it changes from 'protestors meeting' to 'terrorist'?
Also I don't think its a good idea to call it a terrorist attack. Calling it so just muddies the waters and pushes any solutions further away.
It was not an attack on the public. It was targeted at Antifa. It was not an isolated incedent either. It was a part of hostilities that had been occurring all day.
Calling it terrorism allows people to dismiss any attempt to deal with the problems that led to it. This was preventable, and if nobody is allowed to speak openly and honestly about it, it will be repeated.
Now please, understand, none of what I said is an attempt to 'justify' or minimize anything. Anyone who thinks that is missing my point.
I don't have any numbers for this year. But over the last couple years I believe the left has the higher body-count.
It does not matter though, murder and violence are not appropriate ways to share ideas, no matter what their politics are.
All sides should be held to the same standard.
Driving a car into a crowd, or organizing a violent, armed attack differ only in degree.
If one is terrorism, so is the other. But I think we would be better off not labeling either as terrorism, because they're something different.
To me, and many others, terrorism is an attack on civilians with the intent of creating fear in the public, to further a political goal.
Not a lot can be done about that, so people don't try.
I think we could have prevented this, but not if people can't talk about it openly and honestly.